220 likes | 354 Views
Selecting Taxonomy Software Who, Why, How. Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services http://www.kapsgroup.com. Agenda. Introduction: Basic Decision Context What, Why, and How Evaluating Software Features – good, bad, and ugly
E N D
Selecting Taxonomy Software Who, Why, How Tom ReamyChief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services http://www.kapsgroup.com
Agenda • Introduction: Basic Decision Context • What, Why, and How • Evaluating Software • Features – good, bad, and ugly • History, Philosophy, and Evolution • Conclusion
KAPS Group: General • Knowledge Architecture Professional Services • Virtual Company: Network of consultants – 12-15 • Partners – Convera, Inxight, FAST, etc. • Consulting, Strategy, Knowledge architecture audit • Taxonomies: Enterprise, Marketing, Insurance, etc. • Services: • Taxonomy development, consulting, customization • Technology Consulting – Search, CMS, Portals, etc. • Metadata standards and implementation • Knowledge Management: Collaboration, Expertise, e-learning • Applied Theory – Faceted taxonomies, complexity theory, natural categories
Varieties of Taxonomy Software • Taxonomy Management • Multi-Tes, Data Harmony, SchemaLogic • Distributed Taxonomy Development • Wordmap, Wikionomy • Text Analytics – Entity Extraction • ClearForest, Inxight, Teragram • Auto-Categorization • ClearForest, Inxight, Teragram • Embedded software – Content Management, Search
Why Taxonomy Software? • If you have to ask, you can’t afford it • Spreadsheets • Good for calculations, days of taxonomy development over • (almost) • Ease of use – more productive • Increase speed of taxonomy development • Better Quality – synonyms, related terms, etc. • Distributed development – lower cost, user input (good and bad)
Decision Points • Dedicated taxonomy management software • Small company, specialized taxonomy • Real issue is how it will be integrated • Text analytics / auto-categorization • Dedicated software or use features of CM and/or enterprise search • Combination of dedicated and embedded • Integration – export and import is critical • Integration with Policy / Procedure • Distributed contributions
Taxonomy – How will it be used? • Browse front end to portal • Search engine indexing • Keyword searching • Hierarchical browsing – formal structure • Faceted navigation • Subject taxonomy and lots of metadata • Controlled vocabulary for entering metadata • Applications – text and data mining, alerts, etc. • Semantic Infrastructure
Evaluating Taxonomy Software Historical Perspective: Four Methods • Spreadsheets were good enough for my father • Flip a Coin • 50-50 chance • Ask a Friend (Industry Recommendation) • Historical Accident? • Feature Check List and Score • Basic taxonomy functionality • Which method produces different results?
Evaluating Taxonomy SoftwareFeature Checklist and Score: Basic Features • New, copy, rename, delete, merge • Branches not just nodes • Scope Notes • Spell check • Search – all parts and selected (only taxonomy nodes) • Names and Identifiers for terms and nodes • Versioning
Evaluating Taxonomy SoftwareFeature Checklist and Score: Usability • Ease of use – copy, paste, rename, merge, etc. • User Documentation, user manuals, on-line help, training and tutorials • Visualization • file structure, tree • Hierarchy and alphabetical? • Automatic Taxonomy/Node Generation • Nonsense for Taxonomy • Node – suggestions – perhaps • List of terms out of context versus reading
Evaluating Taxonomy SoftwareFeature Checklist and Score: Additional Features • Language support – international • If you have need for it • Scalability – Size of taxonomy rarely important • More important for auto-categorization • Import-Export – XML and SKOS • Support standards – NISO, etc. • Mapping between taxonomies • API / SDK • Security, Access Rights, Roles – See integration
Evaluating Taxonomy SoftwareAdvanced Features – Taxonomy as Platform • Text Analytics – multiple document types • Entity Extraction • Multiple types, custom classes • Auto-categorization • Training sets • Terms – literal strings, stemming, dictionary of related terms • Rules – simple – position in text (Title, body, url) • Advanced – saved search queries (full search syntax) • NEAR, SENTENCE, PARAGRAPH • Boolean – X NEAR Y and Not-Z • Advanced Features • Facts / ontologies /Semantic Web – RDF +
Evaluating Taxonomy Software “Philosophy” Perspective • Self-Knowledge is the highest form of knowledge. • It’s not what you do, it’s who you know. • Importance of who on team • Life is meaningless and absurd • And so are most search/categorization results • Beauty and Meaning are in the eye of the beholder • Raise your hand if you think I’m more beautiful than … • “The real constitution of things is accustomed to hide itself” • Beware 2.0 “solutions”
Self Knowledge is the highest form of knowledge • Start with self knowledge – KA audit – content, users, technology, business and information behaviors • Develop a model of taxonomy use in your enterprise • Ask Experts – Taxonomy is not for faint of heart • If test – use own content • Balance of current application and platform • Use the test to get a head start on taxonomy development • Spend more time on self knowledge than vendor capability.
Evaluating Taxonomy SoftwareSelf Knowledge – Distributed model of taxonomy in action • People • Interdisciplinary Team • Knowledge architects, editors, SME, users • Roles • Select and implement taxonomy software, input into CM, Search • Care and feeding of taxonomies, metadata, vocabularies • Initial filter of user input, monitoring user input, answer questions • Provide input – what works and not, new terms • Technology • Develop taxonomies, vocabularies, facets • Integrate taxonomy into CM, search, applications • Activities • Information needs and behaviors – support with advanced features
It’s not what you know, it’s who you knowDesign of the Taxonomy Selection Team • Traditional Candidates - IT • Experience with large software purchases • Search/Categorization is unlike other software • Experience with needs assessments • Need more – know what questions to ask, knowledge audit • Objective criteria • Looking where there is light? • Asking IT to select taxonomy software is like asking a construction company to select the design of your house. • They have the budget • OK, they can play.
It’s not what you know, it’s who you knowDesign of the Taxonomy Selection Team • Traditional Candidates - Business Owners • Understand the business • But don’t understand information behavior • Focus on business value, not technology • Focus on semantics is needed • They can get executive sponsorship, support, and budget. • OK, they can play
It’s not what you know, it’s who you knowDesign of the Taxonomy Selection Team • Traditional Candidates - Library • Understand information structure • But not how it is used in the business • Experts in search experience and categorization • Suitable for experts, not regular users • Experience with variety of search engines, taxonomy software, integration issues • OK, they can play
It’s not what you know, it’s who you knowDesign of the Taxonomy Selection Team • Interdisciplinary Team, headed by Information Professionals • Relative Contributions • IT – Set necessary conditions, support tests • Business – provide input into requirements, support project • Library – provide input into requirements, add understanding of search semantics and functionality • IP – Rank the relative contributions • Knowledge Audit – understand information behaviors • Taxonomy in full context
Evaluating Taxonomy SoftwareEvolutionary Approach • Eliminate the unfit • Filter One- Ask Experts - reputation, research – Gartner, etc. • Market strength of vendor, platforms, etc. • Look for minimum features, • Filter Two – Technology Filter – match to your overall scope and capabilities – Filter not a focus • Filter Three – Focus Group one day visit – 3-4 vendors • Filter Four – deep pilot (2) – advanced, integration • Evolve higher life forms • Focus on working relationship with vendor. • Focus on ease of customization
Conclusion • Start with self-knowledge • Taxonomy is not an end it itself – what will you use it for? • Basic Features are only filters, not scores • Integration – need an integrated team (IT, Business, KA) • Integration – right balance, location (dedicated or embedded) • Integration – Distributed model of taxonomy development and applications • Central team and distributed authors, users • CM, Sharepoint, Search, Advanced Applications
Questions? Tom Reamytomr@kapsgroup.com KAPS Group Knowledge Architecture Professional Services http://www.kapsgroup.com